Beetles in Stone: The Egyptian Scarab

Author(s): William A. Ward

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Dec., 1994), pp. 186-202
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210428 .
Accessed: 14/02/2013 00:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Beetles
Stone:

ile a biologist may appreciate the beauty of the beetle's

physical structure and the
wonder and precision of its life cycle,
to most of us the beetle is simply a pest,
certainly not a creature to be endowed
with awe and respect. The Egyptian
attitude toward the beetle was quite
the opposite of the attitudes of most
people today.1The beetle is an extraordinarily common motif in Egyptian art,
it was honored in religious thought,
and the name of the beetle and its picture portrayed the idea "to come into
existence" in the Egyptian language
and script. The Egyptians honored the
beetle because it represented something that was deeply meaningful
within the framework of their beliefs
about the universe. It spoke about the
powers they believed controlled that
universe, and reflected thoughts about
the Egyptians themselves and their
eternal existence.

in

The

Egyptian
Scarab
By William A. Ward

The male beetle makes a ball of dung to

be buriedjust under the surfaceand used
later as a food supply.To rollthis food supply to where it will be buried,the beetle
balances on its rearlegs, using the front and
middle pairto push the ball. Photograph
by
S. 1.Bishara.FromWard1978:1071.

-" -

--

Scarab Origins,
Manufacture, and Use
Origins
Around 2500 BCE,
a class of small stone
amulets
began to appear in
design
found
primarilywith women
Egypt,
and childrenburied in cemeteries of the
ordinary people of Egypt. The earliest
examples are shaped like a tiny pyramid and have geometric and animal
designs engraved on the bottom surface. As time went by, the shape of these
objectschanged into circularbases with
a pierced knob on the back, the form
which caused early archaeologiststo call
these objects"buttonseals."Shortlyafter
this, design amulets began evolving into
objectsthat retained the circularor oval
base, but were now carved with backs
in the form of animal or human heads,
or whole animal or human figures.2
One of these animals was the beetle.
Within a very short time, the beetle be-

. ',,a .
,,

:,.-

.r.

N,

~5?

?'
??

It
L L

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

?Yj

.'

came almost the only back used on this

class of object.It is this final stage of
artisticdevelopment that is called the
"scarab.3"Fromabout 2200 BCE
to late
in Egyptian history,scarabsremained
one of the most common objectsmanufacturedin Egypt. Hundreds of thousands are known in museums around
the world. They are found in every excavation in Egypt and across the ancient
world from Syria to Spain. By the end of
its long history,the scarabhad become a
universal objectin the Mediterranean
countries and was manufacturedin
many places outside Egypt. What was
createdas a small amulet for women
and children of the poorer classes of
Egypt became an internationalobject
for all classes of people everywhere in
the ancient world.
Life Cycle of the Dung Beetle
But the immediate question is: why the
beetle?Or more specifically,why one
species of this insect, the dung beetle?
Nothing can be less inspiring to us than
an army of beetles crawling around a
dung-heap. But the Egyptians saw
something vitally significantin that very
situation.They saw a vision of rebirth
into paradise, the resurrectionof the
soul; they saw the daily rebirthof their
most powerful symbol, the sun, as it
appears each morning over the eastern
horizon.
They saw, of course, what they
thought was the beginning and the end
of the birthcycle of the dung beetle.
Time after time, they witnessed the mature beetle rollinga ball of dung, burying this ball under the earth,and some
fifteen to eighteen weeks later,a new
beetle emerging from the ground. But
the Egyptiansmisunderstood the life
cycle of the dung beetle.
The dung beetle actually makes two
balls of dung, one round and one pearshaped.4The round ball is simply a
food supply tucked away somewhere
in the sand for storage in a kind of
kitchen pantry.The pear-shapedball is
the one in which the egg is actually laid.
But this pear-shapedmaternalball was
made underground. Casual observers
never see it;they see only the round ball
made on the surface.This led to the

44

Pi

'L?

II
C

44

"

~ ~

16iIQ

-?

'st

lb

~i~

The female beetle makes an oval ball underground.The egg is placed in a pouch on this
ball which becomes the food supply for the larvaonce the egg is hatched. Casualobservers
never notice the female's activityand can easily attributethe birth-cycleto the male alone.
Photographby S. I. Bishara.FromWard1978: 101.

12

Design-amulets and earlyscarabs.Scarabsare one form of an earlytype of object, the design-amulet, the earliest(1) having a pyramidshaped back. These soon developed into examples with shanks (2) and knobs (3) as well as animaland human figures (4-5). The beetle form,
or scarab,was one of the latter,from the first small ones (6) to the largermore elaborate style
(7). The objects shown here date ca. 2300 to 2100 BCE.Drawingsafter Brunton(1927; 1948).

57:4 (1994)
BiblicalArchlaeologist

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

187

-y

,/

\r

---2Z

The god Khepri seated in his barkas the personificationof the morning sun; after a vignette
to Chapter17 of the Book of the Dead written duringthe New Kingdom.Khepriis identified
by the symbol of a beetle on his head. The dung beetle (ScarabaeusSacer L),the model for
the scarabamulet, was associatedwith Kheprialreadyin the PyramidTextsof the Old Kingdom.
He is frequentlymentioned in the Bookof the Dead as being a self-engendered deity who
each night creates the morning sun that emerges the next morning.The name Kheprimeans
"Hewho comes into existence (by himself);"that of the dung beetle/scarabwas kheprer,"that
30.
which continuouslycomes into existence (by itself)."DrawingfromE.Navillel971:pl.

misconceptionthatit is thelargeround
ballin whichtheegg is placedand from
whichthenew beetleis born.Inreality,
themalebeetleworkson thesurfaceto
createthe familyfoodsupply,whilethe
femaleis undergroundpreparingthe
nursery.
Inmakingtheroundfeeding-ball,
thedungbeetleuses its powerfulforelegsanda spade-likeprojectionin front
calledtheclypeus.Thesearethetools
withwhichit worksby scoopingand
moldingtherawmaterialuntilit forms
a ballof dungaboutfourto five times
itsown size.Thisis thetaskof themale
beetlewho laboriouslycollectstheraw
material;thenpushing,patting,shapspherethat
ing,buildsup a near-perfect
is easilyrolledto whereit will be buried
in thesand.
Meanwhile,thefemalelaborsundergroundmakingthepear-shapedmaternalballin whichtheegg is to be laid.
Workingalone,sheburrowsfourto
eightinchesintotheground,digs out a
chamberaboutfourinchessquare,
bringstherawmaterialintothischamber,andcreatesthepear-shapedball.At
theball'snarrowend,she carefullyconstructsan oval hollowin whichtheegg
is laid.Thelittlechamberand thetunnelby whichit is reachedis thenclosed
188

Important Egyptian officials were granted the use of a royalsignet ring with which
they could seal documents in the king's
name. Here,an unnamed treasuryofficialof
preKingTutankhamon(ca. 1336-1327 BCE)
sents such a seal to the Viceroyof Nubia,
Amenhotep, who is identified in this scene
by his nickname-Huy.Inthe book of Genesis,
Joseph is said to have receivedsuch a seal
when he became the EgyptianMinisterof
Agriculture.Fromthe tomb of Amenhotep,
no. 40 in the Theban necropolis.Drawing

up.Whenthelarvabreaksoutof theegg,
it feedson thematernalball.Whenready
tochangeintothepupalstage,itburrows from Newberry,1906: pl. II.
deeperintotheearth.Hereit carvesout
anotherchamberin whichit changes
supremesymbolof birth,of life,and
intoa pupa,feedingon plantroots.After especiallythesecondbirthintoeternal
existence.Thelittlestonescarabhad
two to threeweeks,it emergeson the
surfaceas a youngbeetle.
becomea powerfulamuletto helpassureeternallifein paradise,a meaning
whichwas maintainedthroughoutits
Symbolic Associations
and other Uses
longhistory.Thescarabsignifiedthe
Observationsof thedungbeetlemade
regenerativepowersof Atumthecrethis
are
what
made
the
ator,and Re,theproviderof life.As
by Egyptians
insectso importantto them(Ward1978: such,it was a potenttalismanindeed.
Butscarabsalsohadotheruses.We
43-46;de Meulenaere1972;Giveon
1974).Herewas a creaturethatemerged now knowthattheearlydesignamulets
out of theearth,an immediatesymbolof weresometimesused as seals,forexof thedead.Becausethey ample,on theclaystoppersof pottery
theresurrection
misunderstoodtheactualbirth-cycle,
jars(Giddyand Grimal1979:38-39;
the
as
the
of
beetle
1980:267-68).By around 2000 BCE,
theyapparentlythought
a
scarab
became
a
coma
who
of
of
sex,
male,
planted impression
being
single
his seed in theroundballout of which
mon methodforsealingmanykindsof
camehisoffspring.Theyveryearlyasso- objects.Theirdesignswereimpressed
ciatedthismistakenviewwiththedivine intotheclaystoppersof potteryvessels,
or themud sealingson storagechestsor
powertheycalledKhepri,who was a
formof thesun-godRe,themorning
rolled-uppapyrusdocuments.Scarabs
eachday.5 usedas sealsfoundextensiveuse in govsun rebornby self-generation
at all levels.7
ernmentadministration
Thebeetlewas alsoassociatedwith
Withthe adventof theTwelfthDynasty,
Atum,to whom thecreationof theunithereappeareda new classof scarabsenversewas ascribed,and who was also
self-engendered.6
gravedwiththenamesandtitlesof kings
and governmentofficialsfromprime
Thedungbeetlethusbecamethe

57:4 (1994)
BiblicalArchaeologist

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ministersdown to humble caretakersof

storehouses. Some officialsof the centralgovernment were granted the privilege of using a scarab-sealengraved
with the king's name. Since they acted
in the king's name, they could thus use
the king's name to sign documents.
This does not mean that all scarabs
engraved with names and titles were
used as seals. The scarabbecame an
even more potent amulet for achieving
the afterlifewhen it was engraved with
a personal name. This identified the
specific individual on an objectwhich
was intended to help the person gain immortality.This practicewas carriedeven
furtherwith royal names. A king's personal name in itself had important magical propertiessince the king, while not
a god during his lifetime as popularly
believed,8did hold an office which had
been createdat the beginning of time
and which was endowed with divine
power. Scarabsnaming especially venerated kings were made in bulk, often
for centuries after their lifetimes. Such
scarabswere obtained through visits to
royal funerarytemples as a souvenir of
the prayers offered there by an individual on behalf of the royal soul.
One group of scarabsnaming Sesostris I was made five centuries afterhis
death (Ward1971:134-36).Many Egyptian rulers were so honored long after
their lifetimes. Scarabsnaming Thutmosis IIIof the Eighteenth Dynasty, for
example, were still being made a thousand years afterhe died (Jaeger1982).A
similar practicehas continued down to
the presentday in Nubia. A scarabfound
by a local inhabitantoften becomes a
family heirloom, a kind of a magical
good-luck piece, passed down from generation to generation.9
The scarabwas also used as a piece
of jewelry.Stone scarabsin gold or silver ring-mounts are quite common, and
scarabswere often used as elements in
pectorals,bracelets,and necklaces (Aldred 1971;Wilkinson 1971;Andrews
1990).While scarabswere thus used for
decorative purposes, in Egypt they no
doubt maintained theirbasic amuletic
character.The horse shoe in America
and blue bead in Near Easterncountries
are used in the same manner today.

I
Of

While the scarab was most commonly used as a talisman to achieve eternal life, it had
other uses as well, for example, sealing papyrusdocuments or as in this case, a Middle Kingdom wooden wig box found at Lisht.

''

Commoners as well as kings inscribedtheir names and titles on scarabsthat were sometimes used as seals. Tothe left is a scarab naming "TheSteward Khnumhotep"of the Middle
Kingdomand, to its right,one naming KingAmenhotep IIIand Queen Tiyof the Eighteenth
Dynasty.Note the V-shapedmarkingscalled the humeralcallosityon the wing cases of the Eighteenth Dynastyscarab,a typographicalfeature that was not used before that time. It does not
The
appear, of course, on the Middle Kingdomscarab. Photographs
courtesyof DaphnaBen-Tor,
Dr.
IsraelMuseum,Jerusalem.

BiblicalArchaeologist
57:4 (1994)

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

189

glb~~4
Scarab of the Phoenician tradition, ca.
800-700 BCE.
Phoeniciancraftsmen,always
influenced by Egyptianart, produced a new
type of scarabcombining Egyptianmotifs
with those of other traditions.The resultwas
often a complicated design and a highly

decorated representationof the beetle itself.

Inthis example, the decoration on the back
is far more elaborate than on Egyptian
scarabs and the design on the base is a mixture of many traditions.The centralfigure
wears an Egyptianheaddress and a Canaan-

O~

ee

WOE)

4)e

Scarabs engraved with royal names were

most often amulets, not seals, and were continuouslyre-issuedlong aftera king had died.
Inthis group,an incorrectspellingof the name
of SesostrisI (ca. 1943-1898 BCE)runsdown

190

Biblical

Archa'olo'ist

the center of the design and two examples

add the name of Amenhotep II(ca. 1427-1401
at the top. Thesescarabswere therefore
BCE)
made five centuriesafterthe reignof the king
they honor. Drawingsafter Ward1971:fig.29.

ite cloak,the winged sun-disc is taken from

Assyrianart, and the four-winged scarab is a
Canaaniteadaptation of a common Egyptian motif, probablyinfluenced by Hurrian
prototypes. Photos and drawing from Ward
1967:pi. 12:1and p. 69.

Manufacture
Scarabswere made of almost any kind
of stone, often of glazed composition,
or, more rarelyof gold, silver,or bronze.
The most common materialused is
universally known as steatite, though it
is really a kind of talc (Lucas 1962:15556; Richards1992:5-8). In its natural
state, this soft stone is easily carved and
engraved, which accounts for its very
common use in the manufactureof
scarabsand other small objects.Once the
scarabwas fashioned, it was plunged
into a hot liquidglaze.This accomplished
two things: the glaze coating gave a
smooth shiny surface to the object,and
the intense heat of the glaze altered the
chemical composition of the stone
through dehydration so that it became
very hard. This hardened form is properly called steatite.The glaze is actually
an early form of glass that could be colored by the addition of coloring agents.
Scarabswere most often given a deep
blue or green glaze, imitating the color
of the live insect. The second most common materialis glazed composition,
often termed faience, frit,or paste;
again, this is a form of glass using the
same ingredients but in different proportions (Lucas 1962:160;Ward1993:95;
Clerc,et al. 1976:24-28).
Scarabs, Scarabs,
Everywhere
One of the intriguing things about
scarabswas their popularity outside

57:4 (1994)

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Canaanite
artists adapted
the Egyptian
scarabto local
beliefs and engravingtechniques as earlyas
the Middle
BronzeAge. One
such adaptation
is the use of symbolism in the

"Omega-group"
as on nos. 1-4,
representingthe
Canaanitegoddess Astarte.
Exampleslike
nos. 5-6 are
included in this
group as they are
engraved in
raisedreliefand
show the same
crude scarab
style. A second
group, the
"nakedgoddess"
of nos. 7-9, portraysAstarte
herselfin a typicallyCanaanite,
but not Egyptian,

include Egyptian hieroglyphs and symbols. Two of these are Keel'sjaspergroup and the well-known robed Canaanite figure.The jaspergroup (Keel
1989b)is characterizedby stick-figures
and carelessengraving,and all examples
are manufactured from hard stones.
While the standing figures find ready
comparisons with Asiatic cylinder seals,
the jaspergroup scarabs make consistent use of Egyptian symbolism as well.
The other design-the standing or enthroned male figure with Canaanite
costume (Schroer1985)-is obviously
not Egyptian but again includes Egyptian symbols as part of the design.

K4W

stance. Drawings
after Keel 1989a
and Schroer 1989.

Egypt. This raises the question of what

the scarabsignified in foreign places
and how much this peculiarly Egyptian
class of objectmight be adapted to foreign ideas and beliefs. Such adaptations
are already evident in Middle Bronze
Age Canaan as shown by Othmar Keel
and his colleagues in Freiburg.Two of
these adaptations are the Omega-group
and the nude goddess motif. The
Omega-group (Keel 1989a)takes its
name from the prominent symbol in the
design resembling the Greek letter.Both
this symbol and the symbol that usually
accompanies it are said to representa
Canaanitefertilitygoddess, possibly
Astarte.The symbols find their prototypes in the cylinder seal traditionsof
Mesopotamiaand Syria.The designs are

engraved in raised relief,which is not

an Egyptian practiceon scarabs,and
seems to derive from copying cylinder
seal impressions.
We have here, then, a local engraving
technique with a mixed design repertoire of both Asiatic and Egyptianorigin. The nude goddess shown frontally
(Schroer1989:93-121)is clearly a west
Asiatic motif with prototypes on cylinder seals and the common Astarte
plaques. Showing human or divine figures frontallyruns contraryto the Egyptian practiceo0so that, in this case, both
the subjectmatterand the method of
representationare Canaaniterather
than Egyptian.
The sources of other motifs are not as
clear as these since they almost always

Other Canaanite adaptations of the

Egyptian scarab include a series done in a
local engravingtechnique, the "Jaspergroup," nos. 1-4. Nos. 3-4, however, while
carved in this Canaanitestyle are local copies
of purelyEgyptiandesigns. Nos. 5-8 represent the "toga-wearer"group, a royalfigure
in Canaanitecostume, based on prototypes
in Canaaniteand Syrianart. Drawings
after
Keel 1989b and Tufnell1984

57:4 (1994)
BiblicalArchaeologist

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

191

The lattertwo scarabgroups present

a problem encountered with
many scarabsand other objects
found outside Egypt:what is the
purpose of the use of Egyptian
symbolism in a clearly foreign
context?In other words, these
Egyptian symbols have a particular
significancewithin an Egyptiancontext.
Was that significance the same in a foreign context, or was the meaning altered to suit the beliefs of that foreign
context?Or are we here dealing with
nothing more than symbols which are
used merely as decoration in an attempt
to copy admired Egyptian originals?
Keel and his colleagues support the
idea that Egyptian symbolism was altered to suit Canaanitebeliefs. Their
arguments are not convincing, and
these scarabsmay be merely bad copies
with no local religious significance.
The same problem of interpretation
is found in other foreign scarabtraditions. In the early firstmillennium BCE,
we begin to find large collections of

del

piece as it portraysthe scarabwith four

wings, a common foreign adaptation of the
two-winged flying scarabtypicalof Egyptian
art. The four-winged variantprobablyoriginated in Syriaunder the influence of Hurrian
art which used such four-winged figures

scarabsof the so-called Phoenician style

in MediterraneanEurope,for example
at Ibiza,Spain and Tharros,Italy (Fernandez and Padr6 1982;Acquaro,
Moscati,and Umberti 1975).Hundreds
were found at Carthageon the North
Africancoast (Vercoutter1945).This
Phoenicianscarabtraditionis dominat-

ed by hard stones, chiefly jasperand

carnelian,and shows a strong Egyptian
influence in the repertoireof motifs (cf.
Culican 1968:50-56).11A large portion
of such scarabswere manufactured locally and, by indirectevidence, we can
point to Carthage,Phoenicia, Rhodes,
Greece, Sardinia,and Italyas having
workshops where these scarabs were
produced on the spot.
The Phoenician scarabstyle was borrowed by Greek gem engravers in the
sixth century BCE,
who perhaps learned
the art of cutting hard stones from Phoenician craftsmen. By the end of the fifth
century,the scarab form became much
less used as this archaicGreekstyle gradually changed into classical Greek gems
(Boardman1968;Boardmanand Vollenweider 1978).The Greek scarabstyle
was soon brought to Etruriaby Greek
immigrants where a new and distinctly
Etruscantraditionappears from the
sixth to third centuries. This is characterizedby its widespread use of a deep
red carnelian,decoration on the edge of
the plinth and wing cases, and local
engraving techniques (Boardman1975;
Zazoff 1968).Both the Greek and Etruscan traditionsearly introduced a design
repertoireof their own, and the Egyptianizing motifs gradually disappeared.
Concurrentwith these Phoenician,
Greek, and Etruscanhard-stone styles,
countless other scarabsof steatite and
glazed composition were being manufacturedat, among other places, Carthage, Perachorain south-easternGreece,

10

Mediterraneanworld. The scarabevidence

indicatesthat the popularityof Isisin foreign
cultures may have arisen somewhat earlier

Phoenician (nos. 1-7) and Egyptian (nos.

8-10) scarabs portrayinga scene from the
Isis-Osirismyth. Thisand many other scenes
from the myth are known from hundredsof
Phoenicianscarabsfound throughout the

192

Egyptian artistic influence, includingthe

scarab, is found on jewelrymade locally
aroundthe Mediterranean.Thisgold bracelet
from Sardinia, dating ca. 700-600 BCE,
iS
embossed with Egyptianpalmettes, lotus
flowers, and the "flyingscarab"motif. The
latter provesthe non-Egyptianorigin of the

than now supposed. Drawingsafter Ward

1970b.

extensively.

57:4 (1994)
BiblicalArchaeologist

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Lindos on Rhodes (Vercoutter1945;

James 1962;Blinkenberg1931).The sum
total is quite remarkable;scarabsare
found in quantity throughout the Mediterraneanfrom the early firstmillennium
BCE
into Hellenistic times.

Scarab popularity
It is franklydifficult to account for this.
The facts of which we can be certainare
these. Egyptian scarabswere very popular abroadamong local populations.
At least as early as 800 BCE,
scarabsin
the Phoenicianstyle were manufactured
abroad.While these foreign scarabsretained much of the design repertoireof
the Egyptian tradition,foreign techniques, motifs, and designs were introduced which altered the characterof the
Egyptian originals.
Justwhy the Egyptianscarabbecame
so popular abroad is hard to say. Certainly,the meaning of the scarabas an
amulet to help attaina cheerful afterlife
did not really apply in other societies.
The afterlifeas conceived by most religions of western Asia was a ratherdismal existence in a cave beneath the
earth where everyone went afterdeath,
irrespectiveof how they had lived in
this life. The Greeks looked forward to
their own gloomy Hades. It does not
seem logical that such societies would
care much for the amuletic characterof
the Egyptianscarab.Still,in the firstmillennium BCE,
ideas about the next life
were changing.The Asiaticreligionsand
the new cults thatsprang up everywhere
now taught that divine reward and
punishment were reserved for eternity
and good or evil actions in this life
would determine whether that eternity
was spent in bliss or misery. In this context, the scarabmay have held more
significance.
There is scarabevidence that the
EgyptianOsiris myth, which was intimately associated with resurrection,became popular beyond Egypt. One cannot say how early this myth became
attractiveoutside Egypt,but by the early
first millennium BCE,
episodes from this
myth are portrayedon scarabsmade
abroad.Practicallyall the majorepisodes in the Osiris myth are found on
scarabsmade in Mediterraneancoun-

I,

When the scarab was adopted by cultures

in the west, there were appropriatechanges,
especiallyin the design repertoire.The green
jasper scarab(top) was engraved in the
Greco-Phoenicianstyle with a purelyGreek
motif, Heraklesholding a club and a bow
and arrows.The sardonyxscarab (bottom) is
of Etruscanorigin, the motif again from the
classicalrepertoire.Here,Heraklesstands on
the left, holding up the heavens with one

tries,illustratingthe popularity of this

myth in foreign places. Indeed, thereare
more scarabsportrayinga largervariety
of scenes from the Osiris myth found
abroadthan thereare from Egypt itself,12
conforming to the general spread in the
first millennium of Isis as a universal
mother-goddess. This was an attribute
which was not part of her original character in Egypt, though it did eventually
emerge therebecause of her immense
popularity.
With the possible exception of such
scenes which can be relatedto the spread
of Egyptian religious beliefs, it seems
probable that the most extensive use of
scarabsin foreign places was simply for
jewelry and decorative design. Scarabs
mounted as finger-rings,ear-rings,and
pendants are found in all the traditions
noted here-Phoenician, Greek,and
Etruscan.As decorative motifs, the
scarabwas used on the ivories and metal

hand and grasping a club in the other. He is

accompanied by Atlas pluckingapples from
a tree around which twines a serpent with
three heads. The Egyptianscarab in the west
was thus transformedinto a Greco-Roman
object, an ancestor of the engraved gem
traditionof the ClassicalPeriod.Photographs
by Pia Ward.Courtesyof the Departmentof Classical Art, TheMuseum of FineArts, Boston.

bowls for which the Phoenicians are so

well known, and on other objectssuch
as the braceletfrom Tharros(see photo
on page 192). It seems likely that, in
these contexts, scarabs were seen more
as exotica than as symbols of thought
and belief.

The Troublewith Scarabs

Multiplicity and Variabilty
'"Thetrouble with scarabs"is an apt title
for the remainder of this article.The
trouble with scarabsis that there are so
many and, with the exception of those
made of glazed composition in molds,
no two are alike. The pure bulk of
scarabs is well known to anyone interested in archaeology.The enormous
number of scarabs made in Egypt is
due to their basic characteras amulets,
including those engraved with royal
names. The religious beliefs of ancient

BiblicalArchaeologist
57:4 (1994)

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

193

Egypt demanded an extraordinary

range of amulets of all kinds-the
scarabwas merely one of an almost
endless variety (see, e.g., Petrie 1914;
Miiller-Winkler1987).Because of its
initial association with the gods Atum
and Re, and then with all deities, and
kings, and the thousand other forces
that brought protectionfrom evil, the
scarabbecame one of the most popular
amulets, equaled only by the sacred eye
of Horus. Theirsheer bulk, then, is due
to a popular demand for yet another
amulet that offered protection from evil.
It is perhaps not as well known that
no two scarabsare the same, with the
exception of those made in molds. For
example, in the Middle Bronze IIIAge,
the so-called Hyksos period (ca. 16501550 BCE),the numerous varieties of
heads, backs, sides, and designs used at
that time permit over one hundred
thousand typological combinations.
Adding the category of scarabsizeand only those most commonly usedthe possible combinations become
about one million. The endless variety
of scarabsis thus due to these two primary factors:they were desired as
amulets to obtain the good will of the
supramundane world, and the engravers who made them had available a
very wide range of typological features
from which to choose.
Scarabs and Dating. Now the fundamental question we have all asked for a
long time is this: If there are so many
scarabs,and if they are found in archaeological contexts everywhere in the
ancient world, would they not be useful
in dating archaeologicallevels at this or
that site? Could scarabs,like pottery or
coins, become another tool by which
culturalsequences and archaeological
periods can be defined? This problem
was firstaddressed by Flinders Petriein
1889and has been studied ever since by
scholars who have devoted much time
and energy to find acceptableanswers
(surveyed in Wardand Dever 1994).
Methodology. The method employed
in this task was always firstto createa
stylistichistoryof scarabsbased on those
inscribedwith royal names. This yield194

Clypeus
Antenna

Tibia

Pronotum

Humeral
Callosity
Suture

Elytra

The Egyptian Dung beetle Scarabaeus

SacerL.Thebeetle'sstrongforelegsandshovel-like
clypeusenablesit to formballsof dungfourtimesitssize.Thehumeralcallosityis one of the
typological features that helps to distinguish scarabstyle. AfterWard1978,Frontispiece.

ed a chronologicalskeleton and set up a

rough sequence of typological changes
which could then be applied to the vast
numbers of scarabsinscribed with other
designs, which are by farthe most numerous. Having done this, one then
compared scarabsfrom new excavations with the established typological
sequence and assigned a date to this or
that archaeologicallevel, to this or that
tomb. It ought to have worked, but it
didn't. The basic idea is all right-link a
stylistic history of scarabsto the chronology of Egyptian kings-but it is really not as simple as it sounds.
Difficultiesabound. First,the primary emphasis has been on the endless
multitude of designs engraved on the
base of scarabs.The study of scarab
history has thus been primarilya history
of the designs, not the scarabas a whole.

BiblicalArchaeologist
57:4 (1994)

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

It is like studying coins only from the

obverse side, or Attic vases only from
the paintings, or Canaanite pottery only
from the rims. One cannot ignore the
reverse side of coins, or the shapes and
fabricof Attic vases, or the necks and
sides and bases of Canaanite pottery.
One must considerthe whole object.This
is axiomatic in archaeology and has
always been recognized as the proper
way to study and organize any class of
object.But scarabshave too often been
treatedas if they consist only of the designs engraved on their base; the scarab
itself was relatively unimportant. Even
when scarabbacks and sides were considered, they took second place to the
designs.
A second difficulty is that there are
severalclasses of scarabs:those engraved
with designs, those with royal names,

thosewith privatenames,andscarabs
of anyof thesegroupsmadein hard
stones.Whilein any givenperiod,these
classessharesometypologicalfeatures,
eachhasits own peculiaritiesof styleso
thatwe mustdealwithseverallinesof
stylisticdevelopmentthatarethesame
at somepoints,butquitedifferentat
others.
Third,it hasbecomeincreasingly
evidentthatmanyroyalnamescarabs
weremadelongafterthelifetimesof
thekingstheycommemorate,
sometimescenturieslater.A stylistichistory
of royalnamescarabsmusttherefore
definewhichonesarecontemporary
andwhichweremadelater.Otherwise,
one getsa veryincorrectview of the
typologicalhistoryof royalname
scarabswhichthenskews thehistoryof
thedesignscarabtradition.13
Finally,even contemporary
royal
namescarabsarenotalwaysa reliable
guide.A paradeexampleis thelarge
groupof scarabsnamingtheso-called
Sebekhotepkingsof theThirteenthDynasty.No one questionsthatmostare
products;theybelongto
contemporary
thesecondhalfof theseventeenthcenForthatreason,thisscarab
turyBCE.
group,numberingwell overa hundred
(Tufnell1984:pls.54-56),is stillconsidereda key pointin thechronologyof
scarabstyle.Inreality,however,this
scarabgrouphas itsown
particular
uniquetypology.Itstandsaloneand in
no way reflectswhattherestof scarab
productionlookedlikein theThirteenth
Dynasty.Thisgroupreallyrepresents
was notlike
whatscarabmanufacture
in thelaterseventeenthcenturyBCE
(Ward1987:512).
Thfnell's Contribution
These are a few of the difficulties.There
are many more, but these are enough to
illustratethat there must have been
something wrong with the traditional
approachto scarabhistory.In spite of
the enormous effort put into their study
for more than a century,the use of
scarabsas a chronological tool has remained very limited. Olga Tufnellfelt
this in the 1950'sas she put together her
volumes on Lachish(Tufnell1958).There
were hundreds of scarabsfrom that site,

butthereferenceworksof the timedid

notsupplytheanswersshe wanted
fromall thismaterial.Itwas theLachish
publicationthatset heron a courseof
studythatwas to continueuntilshe
died in 1985.In 1%2,whenTufnellwas
in Beirutworkingon the MontetJar
treasure,I joinedherprojectand we

hUfl
chaactrisic

.63

~*l~~~
eatres

ypoogial

*~~~1~ '4RW.

begana happycollaborationthatlasted
over20 years.
Tufnelldecidedthata differentapproachwas needed.All the accepted
conclusionsaboutscarabhistoryhad to
be discarded.Mostof thedatingcriteria
whichhadbecomearchaeological
law
had to be ignored.Theemphasison

*1

65"
a

i-m

S0

te

1..*g,1

IIA

III

bgmmg
ggjj.

IV

VI

1,1

1,2

Side a

Side bl

Head Al

Design 1

Side b2

Head A3

Side c3Design 2

1,3

II

Side e5

Side e6

Head B2

Side d5

Design 3B1

Design 3C

Side e9

Design 7B

Side d6
Design 6

--

Design 10

Head D9
Head B3

Side ella
Design 11A

--

X
Design 11D
Eachchronologicalperiodhas its own uniquegroupof characteristic
features.Theseare usually not the majortypologicalcategories,but the sub-typesof these categories.Some features
arecharacteristic
overseveral;the latonlyin one chronologicalphase,othersarecharacteristic
ter areof littleuse in dating.Thetypologicalsequenceshown hereis exactlylikethat of any potteryseriation.Thefeaturesmost commonlyused in Period1,1(earlyFirstIntermediatePeriod)
are verydifferentfromthose in PeriodV (FifteenthDynasty).Thestages in between show the
normalprogressionof changeone also findswith pottery,old featuresdroppingout, new ones
being added, and a few used frequentlyoverlong stretchesof time. InPeriodVI(earlierEighteenth Dynasty),for as yet unexplainedreasons,severalearlytypologicalfeaturesthat had gone
out of use suddenlyreappear.

BiblicalArchaeologist
57:4 (1994)

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

195

80

70
60

50
Legend
40-

I A1
LN

30
.7q.

0
1,1

1,2

1,3

II

How the system works. The scarab illustratedhere is from a large

group found in a tomb of the mid-18th Dynasty,ca. 1450 BCE,
though its typological profileshows it was made almost five centuriesearlier.Applyingthe typology discussed in this essay, this
scarab has the simplest lunate head with no markings(Al), a lined
naturalisticback (LN),a high profilewith the legs cut h jour (c3), and
an animalfigure as the only design (1D), in this case a beetle. The
graph plots the percent of use of each of these features through nine
chronologicalphases from the earliestscarabs (PeriodI,1)to the mid18th Dynasty(PeriodVI).
Thedate of manufactureis most likelyto be that chronological
phase in which all four features were characteristic,hence when

royal name scarabswas faulty,so this,

too, had to go.
Since the bulk of scarabsare design
scarabs,they would be a betterstarting
point. Once a typological history had
been gained from design scarabsfound
in datable archaeologicalcontexts, then
the royal name scarabscould be brought
into the equation, but not before.Tufnell
insisted that the whole scarabneeded to
be considered, not just the design on the
base. Every head, every side, every detail had to be examined. And the core
sample must be based on large groups
of excavated examples. These were to
be found at stratifiedCanaanitesites,
not in Egypt where large groups of
scarabsand impressions are generally
found in contexts covering long periods
of time. Only aftera stylistic history of
design scarabshad been established
should one turn to scarabswith royal
names, and then only after the troublesome scarabsnaming Twelfth Dynasty

196

IIA

IV

III

VI

there was the highest probabilitythat they would appear on the

same scarab. Inthis case, the date is Period1,3,the later 11th Dynasty. Note that HeadAl, BackLN,and side c3 were also common in
the 18th Dynastywhen severaltypological features long out of use
suddenly reappearedon scarabs of that time. However,this date is
ruledout by severalfactors:the high profilewas a dominate feature
only in the earliest periods of scarab manufacture;the small size
(length 10 mm) and design 1D were characteristiconly then; there
are excellent parallelsfrom FirstIntermediatePeriodburials(Ward
1978, pl. 6: 153-155). Scarabdrawing from Tufnell,1984:114, fig. 24:32.

kings had been sifted thoroughly to

determine which were contemporary.14

Scarab Style
The history of scarabstyle is very much
like that of pottery.When a new pottery
form is introduced, it appears first in
small numbers. As its popularity increases,examples become more and
more numerous until it begins to go out
of style. Examples then become fewer
and ultimately disappear.An archaeological phase is distinguished by a
group of pottery forms and details such
as rims, handles, and bases which have
reached their apex of usage, though all
may appear earlierand later than the
phase in which they dominate. This is
also true of scarabs,though on a rather
more complicated level.
I am the first to admit that the typological system developed by Tufnell
and myself over the years is far from
simple. It is not easy to use and is some-

times cumbersome, but that is the nature of the material,not the system. It is
impossible to produce an easy-to-read
dating chartwhich has all the facts illustrated on one quick-referencediagram.
We defined some thirtymajorcategories
of style--heads, backs, sides, and
designs--broken down into over two
hundred and fifty sub-types (Ward
1978:20-33;Tufnell 1984:27-38).While
the majorcategories do show a general
chronological sequence, it is the subtypes which are often more important
because they come and go more quickly
and are thus more reliableindicatorsof
chronological sequence. As with a pottery sequence, each phase in the history
of scarabstyle is distinguished by a
group of typological features which
were most commonly used during that
phase. To show how important the details are, often minute ones, let me note
first the detail with the funny name the humeral callosity.This is a natural

57:4 (1994)
BiblicalArchaeologist

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

60

50
Legend
40

HAlA

SA3

30

20

10

0
1,1

1,2

1,3

II

Even the smallest details may be importantin dating scarabs.The

graph plots the percent of use of three similarlunate head types
from the beginning of scarab historyto the mid-18th Dynasty.The
typological differences between them are slight:Al is plain,A3 has
tiny single lines markingthe eyes, A5 has double lines. The chronological differences, however,are significant.Priorto the New Kingdom, Al and A3 were verycommon up to the earlyyears of the 12th
Dynasty(PeriodII),A5 was more likelyto be used in the 12th to 15th

markingon the live beetle, represented

on scarabsby the little V-shape marks
on the wing-case. The humeral callosity
firstappears,but extremely rarely,on
scarabsat the very end of the Hyksos
period, just before the advent of the
EighteenthDynasty.Fromthen on, these
markingsbecome standardon scarabs
with lined backs, that is, where the
wing-cases are outlined by engraved
lines. This detail is thereforean excellent
broad indicatorof date: scarabswith the
humeral callosity belong to the Eighteenth Dynasty or later.That is of great
help for,among other things, isolating
the many later reissues of scarabsnamingTwelfthDynastykin Scarabsnaming
SesostrisI, for example, were still being
manufacturedin the EighteenthDynasty
and even later.Many can be judged as
late only by the appearanceof the little
V's on the wing-case.
While the humeral callosity is an
easily recognized feature,even the tini-

IIA

III

IV

VI

Dynasties(PeriodsII-V).Allthree appear rathersuddenly as characteristic heads in the 18th Dynasty(PeriodVI).While none of these head
types providesa specific date, they do limitthe possibilities;for example, head A3 points to either the FirstIntermediatePeriodor the
18th Dynasty.Othertypological features used with A3 heads will
determine which date is the correctone: a side type c, cut a jour,
points to the earlierdate; the figure of a deity as the design indicates
the 18th Dynasty.

est details of scarabtypology can be

chronologicallysignificant,This means
that every aspect of scarabshas to be
investigated-heads, backs, sides, designs, and even the less significant features such as size and material.Typing
individual scarabstakes time and can
be frustrating,but the proper analysis of
their various components does allow
most scarabsto be dated. Unfortunately, thereare many scarabswith typological featuresthat were all used over
long periods of time.
This emphasizes an important point
about using scarabsfor dating. Individual scarabsare usually not helpful. But
groups of scarabsare a differentmatter.
Again, pottery is a good analogy. A single pottery vessel is not a good dating
criterionunless it is known to have a
very restrictedperiod of use. In general,
a single pot is not sufficientto date a
burialor house level. Buta group of pottery vessels of varying sizes and shapes

can point to a specific archaeological

period. The largerthe group, the easier
it is to assign a date.

CanaaniteTombScarabs.Groupsof
scarabsactthe sameway.A good example is a fairlylargegroupof scarabs
foundin Canaanitetombdepositsof the
later Middle Bronze I and transitional
I/II periods (Wardand Dever 1994).This
group has some sixty differenttypological features.Some are useless as dating
evidence since they appear rarelyon
scarabs as a whole. But there are sufficient featuresused frequentlyenough
in this group to establish a typological
profile. We have here, then, a set of typological featureswhich can be used to
give a broad definition of what scarabs
of the later MB I and I/II transitionperiods should look like, i.e., in scarabPeriod IIA,Twelfth Dynasty. These Period
IIA scarabsform a bridge between the
preceding stages of scarabhistory (PeriBiblicalArchaeologist
57:4 (1994)

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

197

SI

.'.

Periods'OS

Dynstes

*~~
~
.

.
..

00

1-@

00

)I.

200

*150

000

1950

EndOld Kingdom
2185
FI.P
Dyn.IX/X
(north)

Dyn.XI
(south)

Early
Bronze
IV
1,1-3

2033
Dyn.XI

1963

Materialfrom Egyptiansites. FirstIntermediatePeriod,into

earlyyearsof 12th Dynasty.
2000

II

MontetJarscarabsfrom Byblos.Typologically
relatedto last
phase of PeriodI. Early12th Dynasty.
Middle
Bronze

Dyn.

XII

IIA

1775

1786
Dyn.
'46-:"

ScarabsfromJerichoand Megiddo.MBII.Later12th, early

13th Dynasty.

III

XIII
IV
1650
Dyn.XV
(north)
Dyn.XVII
(south)
1550
Dyn.XVIII

Scarabsfrom Canaanitesites of MBI and VIItransition.

12th Dynasty.

Middle
Bronze
II
1650

VI

ScarabsfromJericho,Megiddo,and CAjjOl.
MBII.
13th Dynasty.

Middle
Bronze
III

ScarabsfromJericho,Megiddo,Fara,and CAjjQI.
MBIll.
15th Dynasty.

Late
BronzeI

Scarabsfrom Lahun,Gurob,and Sedment.

LBI. Earlier18th Dynasty.

datedscarabgroupsfrombothEgyptandCanaanhavebeentestedagainstthe basicdesignscarabseries
A dozenarchaeologically
the resultsgainedfromthe mainseries.Theablistedabove.Alldateto the typologicalphaseto whichtheyshouldbelong,verifying
latestassessment(1989),areapproximate.
Canaanite
solutedatesfor Egypt,basedon Kitchen's
phasesafterWardand
archaeological
Dever(1994).ChangesinabsoluteEgyptianchronologywillcausesimilarchangesin Canaanite
archaeological
chronology.

198

57:4 (1994)
BiblicalArchaeologist
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ods I-II)and the one that follows (Period III).As with a pottery sequence, the
scarabsequence shows a gradualchange
in the characteristicscarabfeaturesallowing us to define several succeeding
phases in scarabmanufacture.
So a clear and progressive stylistic
chronology can be established. How
does this fit into a relative chronology
between Egyptian historicalperiods
and the archaeologicalphases of Canaan?This is shown in the chronological chart.Period I, which breaksdown
into threedistinct phases of scarabmanufacture,is dated by archaeological
context from the early FirstIntermediate Period to about the early years of the
TwelfthDynasty.The Montet Jargroup,
ScarabPeriod II,is so closely associated
with Period I that it must follow immediately thereafter.These two periods are
contemporaryto the late EarlyBronze
and early Middle BronzeI ages. Periods
IIAand IIIare closely related to royal
name scarabsof the laterTwelfth Dynasty which fixes them somewhere in
that period. Since Period IIA falls archaeologically in the CanaaniteMiddle
Bronze I and the I/II transition,Period
IIIfalls in the earlierMiddle BronzeII
Age. ScarabPeriod IV,which progresses neatly from IIIis thus roughly the
ThirteenthDynasty,or the laterMiddle
BronzeIIAge. Period V is archaeologically associated with the Egyptian Fifteenth Dynasty and the CanaaniteMiddle Bronze IIIAge.
Absolute Chronology. If a relativechronology is fairlysimple to establish,an
absolute chronology is not. I must note
here the chaos into which Egyptian absolute chronology has been thrown in
recentyears.15In 1950,RichardA. Parker concluded, after a detailed study of
the astronomicaland other evidence,
that the Twelfth Dynasty ruled for 206
These dates
years,from 1991to 1786BCE.
became a kind of comfortablefriend to
students of comparative history and
archaeology who depend a great deal
on the chronology of Egypt. Parker's
astronomicallyfixed absolute dates for
the TwelfthDynasty went unquestioned
for over threedecades. A sense of order
prevailed both in Egyptian history and

in setting out the general limits of Canaanite archaeologicalphases.

In the past decade, a series of studies
have appeared which challenge Parker's conclusions and lower the dates for
the Twelfth Dynasty by over half a century.This researchis based primarilyon
exhaustive studies of the astronomical
evidence, some of which had never been
published previously.The new dates
proposed for the Twelfth Dynasty are
1937-1759 BCE.
It is doubtful, however,
that this lowering of Twelfth Dynasty
chronology is going to stand up since it
is builton certainassumptionsthateither
are not true or cannot be substantiated.16
This is not to say that Parker'soriginal dates for the Twelfth Dynasty are
carved in stone. Some adjustments have
had to be made in the matter of coregencies and the lengths of individual
reigns. It seems most likely that the
TwelfthDynasty ruled for 178 years,
from 1963-1786 BCE(Kitchen1989),and
these are the dates I am now using. It
must be emphasized, however, that even
these absolute dates are approximate
though they do represent,I think, the
best we can do at present.17
In terms of an absolute chronology
for Canaanitearchaeologicalphases, the
scarabevidence indicatesthe dates given
on the charts.Middle Bronze I began
some time before the Twelfth Dynasty,
ca. 2000 BCE,
Middle Bronze IIbegan toward the end of that dynasty, ca. 1800/
Middle Bronze IIIbegan ca.
1750 BCE,
1650 BCE,the so-called Hyksos Age.
To sum up very briefly,there are nine
well-defined phases in the history of
scarabmanufacturefrom theirinitialappearanceat the end of the Old Kingdom
into the earlierEighteenth Dynasty.
These phases representa continuous
development in scarabtypology, each
phase with its own characteristictypological profile.This typological history
is based on excavated collections and
has been defined by a detailed study of
all typological featuresof scarabs,the
firstattempt to do so. These nine stages
in scarabhistory can be roughly equated
with Egyptian dynasties and Canaanite
archaeologicalperiods and are helpful in
providing absolute dates for the latter.
As a final note, I should emphasize

that the completely new look at scarab

history that Tufnelland I worked on for
so many years was bound to contain
some errors.No matter how well
planned a projectmay be, mistakes are
inevitable when such a vast amount of
materialmust be considered. A thorough revision of the project(Wardand
Dever 1994) has hopefully removed the
majordefects and given greaterclarity
to both the typological system developed by Tufnelland how it applies both
to Egyptian and Canaanitehistory.

Notes
1Mostnotablythe dung beetle(Scarabaeus
SacerL.).A generalmisconceptionis that
ScarabaeusSacerL.was the only beetlehonoredby the Egyptiansas thisspeciesis theone

mostcommonlyrepresented.
Inreality,
there
wereothers,forexample,thelong,thinbeetle
knowntotheEgyptians
as theankh-beetle,
foundasanamuletalreadyinGerzeantimes
(Ward1978:43-44).
Furthermore,
scarabs
do
not always representScarabaeus
SacerL.,but

manyotherspeciesaswell(Bishara
1978:8891).Whilethepresentessayisconcerned
primarilywiththedungbeetleas thescarabpar
excellence,
theEgyptians
didnotmakethe
biologicaldistinctionsof modernscienceand

seemtohavepassedon toa wholeclassof

insecttherespecttheygavetoScarabaeus.
It
wasthelatter'slifecycle,however,thatinfluencedthemthemost.
2Whendesignamuletsfirstbeganturningup
inburials,
theywereconsidered
foreignimportsastheywerea newtypeof objectin
Egyptian
archaeology.
Earlystudiessuggested

diverseforeignorigins,especiallythe Aegean
and Anatolia(e.g.,Newberry1906:59-61;Petrie
1925:1-3;Frankfort1939:296-98).It is now quite
certainthatin both formand design thisclassof

objectis purelyEgyptian
(Ward1970a).
formany
3Theclassicgeneralstudiesofscarabs
yearswerethoseof Newberry(1906)andPetrie
(1917),thoughboth arenow out-dated.More

recentworksof goodqualityarethoseofde
Meulenaere
(1972),HornungandStaehelin
Boochs(1982),
(1976:13-193),
andBen-Tor
(1989).
onthesubjectisquite
Thespecialized
literature
extensive;
cf.Martin(1985)fora bibliography
listingalmostseven hundreditems,exclusive
of scoresof discussionsin individualexcavationreports.

4Onthelifecydeof thedungbeetle,seeBishara
(1978),anEgyptian
biologistwhohasmadea
life-longstudyof thebeetlesnativetoEgypt.
5Forexample,fromChapter15of theEgyptian
Bookof theDead:"GreetingsHorakhty(= the

sun),Khepritheself-engendered.
Howexcellentwhenyouappearinthehorizonand
thetwolandswithyourrays."
brighten
BiblicalArchaeologist
57:4 (1994)

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

199

Forexample,in a shorthymn to the sun from

Spell587of the EgyptianPyramidTexts,Atum
is identifiedas Khepri,bothbeing formsof the
sun:"GreetingsAtum!GreetingsKheprithe
selfengendered.... Mayyou (i.e.,Atum)come
intoexistencein thisyour nameof Khepri."
7Note especiallythe hundredsof administrativesealingsfromthetown of Lahun("Kahun")
and the Egyptianfortressat Uronartiin Nubia,
now convenientlycollectedand studiedby
On Egyptiansealsand sealings
Tufnell(196%1).
in general,see Boochs(1982).
8Kingscould and oftendid becomegods after
theirdeath.Theextentto whicha kingachieved
divineattributesin his lifetimehas long been
debated;thedifficultiesinvolvedareconveniently summarizedin Silverman1991.On occasion,
a veneratedcommonermightalso be elevated
to divinity(Otto1943).Itmustbe emphasized,
however,thatEnglishtermssuch as "god"and
"divine"implymodem theologicalconcepts
thatdo not necessarilyreflectthoseof antiquity.
Thewhole debateon thesupposed "godkings"of Egypthas beencoloredby ignoring
thisratherimportantpoint.
9Cf.Ward1976on a scarabin the possessionof
a Nubianfamilyforseven generations.Bya
strangecoincidence,theson who will inherit
thisobjectbearsthesame nameas the Egyptian
officialwho once owned it,yet the childwas
namedbeforethe parentsknew what was
writtenon the scarab.
1'Therareexceptionsto thisarethe god Bes,
usuallyshown frontallyto emphasizehis physicalappearance,and the headof Hathor,iconographicallyassociatedwith thesistrum(a percussioninstrument)which was normally
portrayedfrontally.
" Whileit is generallyfeltthatthis tradition
belongsto the IronAge, its originsmustcertainlybe earlier.Scarabsin this stylearevery
numerousand canbe seen throughoutthe
literatureand in unpublishedmuseumand
privatecollections.All thisis currentlybeing
assembledforthe CorpusGlypticaPhoenicia

inBrussels.
Project

12A very summarylistin Ward1970b:348-49.

Inreality,the numberwith Osiridescenesis
veryextensive,and examplescanbe foundin
any collectionof scarabsexcavatedin most
placesaroundthe Mediterranean.
'3Themajorattemptto do createsucha typologivcalhistoryis thatof Jaeger(1982)who deals
primarilywith thescarabsof Thutmosism, but
includesotherrulersof the New Kingdom.
Jaeger'smethodologywas subsequentlyfollowed by Weise(1990)who is concernedwith
portrayalsof kingson scarabs.WhileJaeger
studiedonly the designson scarabplinths,it is
of interestthatwhen the othertypologicalcategoriesareconsidered,thosescarabsof Thutmosis IIIthathe judgedto be contemporaryfall

200

into placewherethey should in the royalname

seriesof the EighteenthDynasty(Ward1984).
14Inpre-NewKingdomtimes,it is only with
thisdynastythatlaterre-issuesmustbe seriously considered.Veryfew were producedfor
ThirteenthDynastyrulers,none forthoseof the
Hyksosand theirvassalsand probablynone
fortheSeventeenthDynasty.The matterof contemporarymanufactureversusre-issuesfor
TwelfthDynastyroyalnamescarabshas beena
problemfromthestartand is stilldebatedin
currentliterature(e.g.,Tufnell1984versus
O'Connor1985).
on thissubjectgrows annually;I
15Literature
haveelsewheresummarizedthedebateas it
stood in 1990(Ward1992).Otherstudieshave
appearedsincethen,notablyLuft'sanalysisof
chronologicaldatain the lllahunpapyri(Luft
1992).
16Thekey problemin the longdebateis whether
or not therewas a singlepointin Egyptat which
officialastronomicalobservationswere made.
Thischieflyconcernsthe helicalrisingof the
starSiriuswhich heraldedtheadventof a new
lunaryear.TheargumentcentersaroundMemphisand Elephantineas havinga kindof nationalobservatorywheresuch sightingswere
madeand thencommunicatedto the restof the
country.However,a heliacalrisingor any other
astronomicalevent was observedon different
days all along the Nile Valley;seven days earlier at Elephantinethanat Memphis,forexample. Due to the obviousimpossibilityof communicatingan astronomicalsightingto the
whole countryon the sameday,it is evident
thatsuch importanteventsas thebeginningof
a new lunaryearoccurredon differentdays in
differentregionsof Egyptand thateachregion
followedits own locallunarcalendar.Sincethe
purposeof the lunarcalendarwas to organize
the complicatedsystemof religiousfestivals
and rituals,it did not matterthata given festival at Memphishad alreadytakenplacea week
earlierat Elephantine.Whatmatteredwas that
the festivaltook placeon the designatedday of
the lunarcalendarat any placein the country.
All this,of course,concernsonly the lunar
calendar.The Egyptiancivilcalendarwith its
regular365-dayyearwas the one used for
administrativepurposesat all levels from
recordingmilitarycampaignsto datingpersonal lettersand laundrylists.Thetwo calendars
servedtwo differentpurposes:one to organize
religiousfestivalsand ceremonies,the otherto
organizedaily life.Sincethe lunarcalendarwas
shorterthanthe civilcalendar,the two were
almostalwaysout of synchronism.Thismay be
a problemformodernscholarshipbut was not
forthe ancientEgyptians.TheIslamicand
Jewishdual calendricalsystemsstillused today
areperfectmoderncounterparts.
'7The key date fortheTwelfthDynastyis the
reignof Sesostris I; the Illahunarchivesrecord
a heliacalrisingof Siriusin his seventhregnal
year.Thecurrentestimatesforthisreignare

57:4 (1994)
BiblicalArchaeologist

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1862-1843BCE(Kitchen1989:153)and 1872-1854
BCE(Luft1992:228),
both incorporatingthe now
acknowledgedshorterreignof SesostrisIII,
nineteenratherthanthirty-six+years.Itis to
Parker'screditthathis date of 1878-1843BCE
(Parker1950:69)is aboutthe same exceptthat
he allowed fora thirty-sixyear reign.Itis ironic
thatwith Luft'svery detailedexaminationof
the evidence,muchof it unknownto Parker,
the debatehas swung fullcircleand thatmost
of it has provenunnecessary.

Bibliography
Acquaro,E.,Moscati,S. and Umberti,M. L.
Collezionedi
1975 AnecdotaTharrhica.
studi fenici5. Rome:Consiglio
Nazionaledelle Ricerche.
Aldred,C.
1971 Jewelsof thePharaohs.EgyptianJewelry of the Dynastic Period. London:

Thamesand Hudson.

Andrews,C.
1990. AncientEgyptianJewelry.London:
The BritishMuseum.
Ben-Tor,D.
1989 TheScarab.A Reflectionof Ancient
Egypt.Jerusalem:The IsraelMuseum.
Bishara,S. I.
1978 Biologyand Identificationof Scarab
Beetles.AppendixA in Pre-12th
Dynasty ScarabAmulets.Editedby
WilliamWard.Studieson ScarabSeals
Arisand Phillips.
I. Warminster:
Boardman,J.
1968 ArchaicGreekGems.Schoolsand
Artists in theSixthand EarlyFifth
CenturiesB.C.Evanston:Northwestern UniversityPress.
1975 Intagliosand Rings.Greek,Etruscan
and Eastern.London:Thamesand
Hudson.
Boardman,J.and Vollenweider,M.-L.
1978 Catalogueof the EngravedGemsand
FingerRings in theAshmoleanMuseum I. Greekand Etruscan.Oxford:
ClarendonPress.
Boochs,W
1982 Siegelund Siegelnim AltenAgypten.
KolnerForschungenzu Kunstund
Altertum4. SanktAugustin:Hans
Richarz.
Clerc,G., et al.
1976 Fouillesde KitionII. Objetscgyptiens
et dgyptisants.Nicosia:Departmentof
Antiquities.
Fernandez,J.H. and Padr6,J.
del MuseoArqueolkgico
de
1982 Escarabeos
Ibiza.Tragajosdel Museo Arquel6gico 7. Madrid:Ministryof Culture.
Frankfort,H.
1939 CylinderSeals.A DocumentaryEssay
on tireArt and Religionof thieAncient

NearEast.New York:Macmillan
and Co.
Giddy,L.and Grimal,N.-C.
1979 Balat:rapportpreliminairedes
fouillesa 'AinAseel, 1978-1979.Biulletinde I'InstitutFrarCiais
d'Archdoliogie Orientale79:31-39.
1980 Balat:rapportpreliminairedes
fouilles'a'AynAsil, 1979-1980.Bulletinde I'InstitutFranCais
d'Archdologie Orientale80:257-69.
Giveon,R.
1984 Skarabaus.Cols.968-81 in Lexikon
derAgiyptologie.
Editedby W.Helck
and W.Westendorf.Vol.5. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.
Hornung,E.and Staehelin,E.
1976 Skarabden
undandereSiegelamuilette
Mainz:von
aus BaslerSammilungen.
Zabern.
Jaeger,B.
1982 Essaide classificationet datationdes
OrbisBiblicus
scarabcesMeinkhiperre.
et Orientalis,Ser.Arch.2. Fribourg:
EditionsUniversitaires.
James,T G. H.
1962 The Egyptian-TypeObjects.Pp.461516 in Perachora.TheSanctuariesof
HeraAkraiaand Limnenia
II. Editedby
T.J.Dunbabin.Oxford:Clarendon
Press.
Keel,O.
1989a Die Q-Gruppe.EinmittelbronzezeitlicherStempelsiegel-Typmit erhabenemReliefaus AnatolienNordsyrienund Palistina.Pp.39-87
in Studicen
zu deniStempelsiegeln
aus
II. Editedby O. Keel.
Paldstina/Israel
OrbisBiblicuset Orientalis88. Freiburg:Universittitsverlag.
1989b Die Jaspis-Skarabiien-Gruppe.
Eine
vorderasiatischeSkarabienwerkstatt
v.Chr.Pp.213-42
des 17.Jahrhunderts
in Studie'nzu deniSteimpelsiegeln
awus
II. Editedby O. Keel.
Paldstina/Israel
OrbisBiblicuset Orientalis88.
Freiburg:Universititsverlag.
Kitchen,K.A.
1989 SupplementaryNotes on 'TheBasics
of EgyptianChronology.'Pp. 152-59
in High,Middleor Low?Acts of an
Internathial Colloquium,onAbsolute
ChronologyHeldat tireUniversityof
20th-22ndAugust 1987.
Gotlhenburg
Part3. Editedby P.Astrim. Studiesin
MediterraneanArchaeologyand
Literature,Pocket-book80.Gothenburg:Astrims Firlag.
Luft,U.
1992 Die chlronologisclhe
Fixierungdes
iigyptischenMittlerenReichesrnachi
demTemnpelarchiv
votnlllahun.Vienna:
Akademieder
Osterreichischen
Wissenschaften.

Lucas,A.
1962 AncientEgyptianMaterialsand Induistries.4th ed. Editedby J.R. Harris.
London:Arnold.
Martin,G. T.
1985 Scarabs,Cylinde'rs
and OtherEgyptian Seals.A Checklistof Publications.
Arisand Phillips.
Warminster:
H.
de.
Meulenaere,
1972 Scarabae'us
saccr.Brussels:Hoechst
BelgiumS.A.
Miller-Winkler,C.
1987 DieiigyptischenObje'kt-amrulette.
Mit PublikationderSanmnlung
dtes
BiblischenInstitfuts
der Universitdt
Schwceiz,
Fre'iburg
Saninlung
eIhe'mals
FouadS. Matouk.OrbisBiblicuset
Orientalis,Ser.Arch.5. Freiburg:
Universittitsverlag.
Newberry,P E.
1906 Scarabs.An Introductionto the Study
of EgyptianSealsand SignetRings.
London:Constable.

a:
.i

??:

?-,lf~

Professor William A. Ward devoted

nearlya quarter.-century(1963-1986)of
his professionallife to the American
Universityof Beirutin Lebanonwhere he
taughtand held numerous administrative positions including that of Associate
Dean. Currently Visiting Professorat
Brown University,Dr.Wardreceivedhis
Ph.D.in SemiticLanguagesat Brandeis
University.Authorof numerousbooks on
aspects of Egyptology and scores of scholarly articles,his latestwork will appearas
ScarabTypologyand ArchaeologicalContext: An Essay on Middle BronzeAge
Chronology(withW.G. Dever;,Studieson
ScarabSeals3. San Antonio: VanSiclen
Press, 1994).Prof.Wardserved as editor
of BerytusArchaeologicalStudies from
1%9 to 1985and continues as co-editor.

O'Connor,D.
1985 TheChronologyof Scarabsof the
MiddleKingdomand the Second
IntermediatePeriod.Journalof the
Societyfor the Studyof EgyptianAntiquities15:1-41.
Otto, E.
1943 Gehaltund Bedeutungdes igyptischen Heroenglaubens.Zeitschriftfiir
AgyptischeSpracheundAltertumskunde78:28-40.
Parker,R.A.
1950 TheCalendarsof AncientEgypt.Studies in AncientOrientalCivilization26.
Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
PetrieW.M.EF
1889 HistoricalScarabs:A Seriesof Drawings froimthePrincipleCollections
London:
ArrangedChronologically.
Nutt.
1914 Amulets.London:Constable.
1917 Scarabsand Cylinderswith Namnes.
Illustratedby the EgyptianCollection
in UniversityCollege,London.London:BritishSchoolof Archaeologyin
Egypt.
1925 Buttonsand Design ScarabsIllustrated by tireEgyptianCollectionin UniCollege,London.London:
vzersity
BritishSchoolof Archaeologyin
Egypt.
Richards,E
1992 ScarabSealsfroma Middleto,Late
BronzeAge Tombat Pellain Jordan.
OrbisBiblicuset Orientalis117.
Freiburg:Universititsverlag.
Schroer,S.
1985 Der Mannim Wulstsaummantel.Ein
Motivder Mittelbrornze-Zeit
IIB.Pp.

r
It

51-115in Studienzu den Stempelsiegelnlaus Paliistina/Israel I. Edited

by O. Keel.OrbisBiblicuset Orientalis
67. Freiburg:Universitcitsverlag.
1989 Die GCttinden Stempelsiegelnaus
Palistin/Israel.Pp. 89-207 in Studien
zu den StempelsiegelnautsPaldstina/
IsraelII. Editedby O. Keel.Orbis
Biblicuset Orientalis88. Freiburg:
Universitlitsverlag.
Silverman,D. P.
1991 Kingshipand Divinity.Pp. 58-87 in
Religionin AncientEgypt.Editedby
B. E.Shafer.Ithaca:CornellUniversity
Press.
Tufnell,O.
1958 LachishIV.TheBronzeAge. London:
OxfordUniversityPress.1965Seal

BiblicalArchaeologist
57:4 (1994)

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

201

ImpressionsfromKah n Townand
UronoartiFort.A Comparison.
nal of EgyptianArchaeology ,Jour61:67-101.

NORTH AMERICAN
ARCHAEOLO

1984 ScarabSealsand theirContributionto

Historyin the EarlySecondMillennium B.C.Studieson ScarabSealsH.
Aris and Phillips.
Warminster:
Vercoutter,
J.
1945 Lesobjetsigyptienset Jgyptisantsdui
fundrairecarthaginois.Paris:
nmobilier
Geuthner.

Editor

ROGERW.MOELLER

Ward,W A.
1%7 ThreePhoenicianSealsof the Early
FirstMillenniumB.C.Journalof
EgyptianArchaeology53:69-74.
1970a TheOriginof EgyptianDesignamulets("Button-seals").
Journal(of
Archaeology,56:65-80.
1970b A
PhoenicianScarabwith a Rare
Eg.ylptian
Design:A WingedIsisand Mummi9:343-54.
formOsiris.OriensAntiquuis
1971 Egyptand the EastMediterranean
World2200-1900 B.C.Beirut:American Universityof Beirut.
1976 A New Chancellorof the Fifteenth
Dynasty.OrientaliaLovaniensiaPeriodica6/7:589-94.
1978 Pre-12thDynastyScarabAmulets.
Studieson ScarabSealsI.Warminster.
Arisand Phillips.
1984 Reviewof Jaeger1982.Bibliotheca
Orientalis41:93-100.
1987 ScarabTypologyand Archaeological
Context.AmericanJournalof Archaeology91:507-32.
1992 The PresentStatusof Egyptian
Chronology.Bulletinof theAmerican
Schoolsof OrientalResearch
288"53-66.

RegionalAdvisoryEditors

JAMESE. AYRES
VAUGHNBRYANT,
Jr.
JOHNL.COTTER
RICHARD
D. DAUGHERTY
MICHAEL
A. GLASSOW
C. GOODYEAR
ALBERT
S. GREENWOOD
ROBERTA
JAMESB. GRIFFIN
MARTHALAITA

J. JEFFERSONREID
RODERICK
SPRAGUE
CARLYLE
S. SMITH
RODERICK
SPRAGUE
R.MICHAEL
STEWART
DAVIDH.THOMAS
JAMES A. TUCK
CLAUDE N. WARREN
WALDOR. WEDEL

State and Provincial

ArchaeologicalSocieties
JOHN PFEIFFER

Resource Management
and
ContractArchaeology
EDWARDS. RUTSCH

General Historical
Archaeology

ROBERTL SCHUYLER

IndustrialArchaeology
ROBERTM. VOGEL

Book Reviews

1993 TheScarabs,Scaraboidand AmuletPlaquefromTyrianCineraryUrns.

Studies(for
Beryftus
Archaeological
1991)39:89-99.

JAY CUSTER

AIMS& SCOPE
North American Archaeologist is concerned with all aspects of American
Archaeology.Geographicallyit covers the
continent north of high cultures in
Mesoamerica-the United States and
part of northern Mexico. Topically it
spans the entire range of cultural evolution in America from Paleo-Indian studies to Industrial Archaeology. Theoretical and methodologicalarticles, provided
their data base is North America, are
also accepted and research based on
cultural resource management as well as
work by state and local societies is
solicited along with the more traditional
academic-museum projects. The editor
particularly encourages papers that cut
across regional or topical boundaries but
more specialized items are also welcomed.
Information:
Subscription
Price per volume - 4 issues yearly
Institutional Rate: $118.00
Individual Rate: $36.00
Postage & handling: $4.50 U.S. & Canada; $9.35
elsewhere.
ISSN 0197-6931

offf0aIfwnka
lywMPL anAUIim
aaMw

Ward,W.A. and Dever,W.G.

and Archaeological
1994 ScarabTyipology
Context.An Essayon MiddleBronze
Age Chronology.Studieson Scarab
SealsIII.SanAntonio:VanSiclen
Press.

Baywood Publishing Company, Inc.

26 AustinAvenue,P.O.337, Amityville,NY 11701
Phone(516) 691-1270 Fax(516) 691-1770

Weise,A.
1990 Zum Bilddes Kinigs auf igyiptischenl
OrbisBiblicuset
Siegelamrnuletten.
Orientalis96. Freiburg:
Universititsverlag.
Wilkinson,A.
1971 AncientEgyptianJewelry.London:
Methuen.

Orders only-call

toll-free (800) 638-7819

Zazoff,P.
Mainzam
1968 Etruskisclhe
Skarabdlien.
Rhein:von Zabern.

202

NA8(94

57:4 (1994)
BiblicalArchaeolohnist

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:23:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions